Ctrl+Alt+Del-Hate

CONTENTS
 Welcome to the third edition of Ctrl+Alt+Del-Hate magazine, a counter-online-radicalization
initiative that connects to LightUponLight.Online’s Society Against Violent Extremism & Hate
(SAVE-Hate) network, a network of former extremists, survivors of extremism, activists and
advocates dedicated to combating polarization, hate and extremism at a higher order of
consciousness than the us-versus-them perspectives that push prejudice and social division.
Since we launched the Ctrl+Alt+Del-Hate initiative in November of 2019, the world has
FROM witnessed a worsening of conditions directly related to setting the stage for further civil conflict
THE and social discord going forward. Between now and the launch of the second issue in March

E
2020, the situation has shifted. First, the COVID-19 pandemic spurred conditions of uncertainty
and economic indicators that suggest a period of impending decline and frustration. After several
months of quarantine, we saw a rise in the resonance of conspiracy theory and extremist
narratives as the world’s largest economy and power managed, somehow, to politicize a
global public health issue.
Rather than utilize COVID-19 to recognize socioeconomic and political fault-lines and to

D
overcome polarization, America grew more and more divided until the death of George Floyd, at
the hands of police in Minneapolis, triggered a spate of nationwide protests ostensibly about
addressing police reform and structural racism, but also indicating a growing support for tearing
down the entire capitalist system and liberal order the U.S. has spearheaded since the
conclusion of World War II and the defeat of fascism.

I
At this moment there is a ton of momentum for creating a new society, though we are told little
about what the specific policies of that society is to look like other than idealistic causes such as
defunding the police, canceling speech that disagrees with far-leftist perspectives and burning
and destroying all that stands in the way of what is allegedly an egalitarian social composition.
Nevertheless, the closer observer recognizes that the society many of the protestors advocate for
is one dedicated to cancel culture, post-modernist philosophy and critical theory that might be

T
looked upon as a neo-communism or neo-totalitarianism, silencing all critics, presenting itself as
decentralized and people led, but in reality led by ideologues with much the same
background as previous waves of revolution that failed tens of millions more than they aided.
Warning to remain cautious amidst the unfolding situation is a one-way ticket toward
ostracization, harassment and claims that one is a white supremacist or bigot, but, at times,
painting nuance into a black-and-white world is in itself a revolutionary action. And so, as a

O
preface to this edition of Ctrl+Alt+Del-Hate, we ask readers to contemplate (and do further
research on) the historical let-downs associated with past idyllic far-leftist revolutions.
Take as on example, particularly pertinent to the current context, the revolutionary Maximilien de
Robespierre, best known for his role in the French Revolution's Reign of Terror. Robespierre once
described his radical agenda as, “the despotism of liberty against tyranny.” It was a form of
revolution built on the notion that the end justified the means, that silence and violence against

R
anyone that disagreed with the revolution was justified and necessary to social
progress. As a member of the Jacobin Club and Constituent Assembly, Robespierre was
perhaps the leading ideologue of the French Revolution. He campaigned for universal manhood
suffrage, the abolition of celibacy for the clergy and slavery. He wanted a united France, equality
before the law and direct democracy. He was an outspoken advocate for citizens without a
political voice and he mobilized agitation and protest that eventually brought about the fall of the
French monarchy.
As the revolution swept into full effect, however, Robespierre was elected as a deputy to the
National Convention where he could advocate these ideals, but would ultimately be undone, in a
few short years, by an obsession with the creation of a perfect world, as he understood it, and a
willingness to utilize violence and the witch-hunt to attain his idyllic vision. Soon, anyone who op-
posed the revolutionary’s regime was imprisoned or killed. The guillotine gave punishment to
over 17,000 "enemies," executed under a Reign of Terror ostensibly meant to end tyranny.
Robespierre personally signed 542 arrest warrants to silence his critics. French society grew
paranoid. Upside-down reasoning led the day. In the end, Robespierre was undone by his indifference to the
human costs of inflicting his egalitarianist vision, a not so egalitarian vision in practice. It was inefficient,
ineffective and caused great suffering, particularly to those he claimed to be liberating.
Eventually, both political elites and the French public turned against him and ended the Reign of Terror, arresting
him. In the echoes of that history, lie a warning for today. The intention for social justice amongst French
revolutionaries was seemingly pure. It was about liberating the masses. However, in practice it became totalitari-
an and was much more about the intellectual class inflicting its vision upon society at large. It certainly betrayed
the principles it preached when applied to any that disagreed with it, even slightly. This period offers an important
warning for the situation unfolding before us currently, as a hypervigilant far-left carries out tribunals of sorts,
curbing free expression, offering egalitarianism, desiring direct democracy and selling an idealism that offers
much in the way of cultural litmus tests, a chilling effect that justifies tearing down the social fabric, destroying the
system and all enemies, but little in the way of concrete policy or plan to address the root causes of inequality,
geopolitical fracture, social fragmentation and hyperpolarization. Warning that these efforts might worsen violent
extremism, or destroy an American system that, for all its faults, led the way in establishing a vision that promotes
reform, recognizes the limitations of revolution and respects the rights of people to hold opposing perspectives,
no matter how divergent, is now a revolutionary act, offering reason in time of emotional zeal.
And so, in this edition of Ctrl+Alt+Del-Hate, an array of voices offer a nuanced perspective from those that have
been there, a balanced and cautious view of what we see unfolding. Hope Hyder, whose father was killed by a
white supremacist, comments on how her personal experiences can inform the complex and tenuous situation
unfolding before us. Daryl Davis, world renown musician and deradicalization expert, and Matt Heimbach, former
far-right wing ideologue, comment on the power of dialogue, in an excerpt of sort from their first face-to-face
meeting held over July 4th weekend. Former white supremacist, Brad Galloway, describes the need for
multidimensional solutions in this age of uncertainity. Acacia Dietz, former National Socialist Movement
propagandist, comments on how far-right wing propagandists will exploit the protests and social movement, as
Jeff Schoep, former commander of the National Socialist Movement, describes how current events suggest that
the race war and conspiracy theories of white replacement, in the minds of those in the far-right, are being ful-
filled and what that means for recruitment. We take an excerpt from former White Aryan Nation leader, Tony
McAleer’s new book The Cure for Hate, and Ivan Humble, former English Defense League leader, tells us about
his perceptions on the spread of protests and extremism into the United Kingdom.
Together, we share the view that in times like these, the only solution is to build bridges between divides, to
educate the non-radicalized masses on the danger of extremist zeal and intersecting and reciprocal
radicalization. We warn, as Eric Hoffer spelled out in his seminal work the True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature
of Mass Movements, that, “All mass movements generate in their adherents, a readiness to die and a proclivity
for united action; all of them, irrespective of the doctrine they preach and the program they project, breed
fanaticism, enthusiasm, fervent hope, hatred and intolerance; all of them are capable of releasing a powerful flow
of activity in certain departments of life; all of them demand blind faith and single-hearted allegiance. All
movements, however different in doctrine and aspiration, draw their early adherents from the same types of
humanity; they all appeal to the same type of mind.”
This type of mind, Hoffer goes on to explain, is the mindset of frustration, that “success and failure are
unavoidably related in our minds with the state of things around us. Hence it is that people with a sense of
fulfillment think it is a good world and would like to conserve it as it is, while the frustrated favor radical change.”
We at LightUponLight.Online call upon all to recognize that this frustration will not be mediated by civil war and
social disorder, that we have at our disposal the tools and consciousness to elevate above what very well might
represent our downfall, and to put in the long, hard work of bridging divides and having uncomfortable
conversation that recognizes that posing solutions based on tearing down and destroying all that stands in the
way of idyllic social alteration, with an unwillingness to pause and consider, or at least appreciate, opposing
views, is in itself the hallmark of extremism.
If you or anyone you know would benefit from contacting us, please feel free to reach out to us at
LightUponLight.Online – Contact Us.
On November 5, 1980 my father, jazz musician
Stephen Harvey, was murdered by white supremacist
Raymond L. Bledsoe. For most of my life, my father’s
death had been like the elephant in the room: it was
there, it had happened, but nobody would talk about
it. As an adult, I understand the purity of the intentions
and the love behind that silence: nobody wanted me
to suffer. Unfortunately, because of that silence, that
unintended prohibition to speak, that involuntary lack
of acknowledgement, I eventually became what
happened to me.
It was not until I was in my 20’s that I began an actual
healing process. Realizing that there was something
inside of me that was wounded, craving for
acknowledgement, was hard. After all, I had no
reason to think that anything was ‘wrong’ with me. My
mother had always done her best to give my brother
and me every opportunity. I had caring friends and
family members. I was working and living in New York
City. I was, basically, living the dream. Nobody, not
even myself, would have thought that there was any-
thing missing in my life. Yet, there was. All it took for
me was one moment of realization, one spark, to
realize that I’d just been drifting through life for the
past years and had not processed the events that
marked my childhood and my development as an
adult.
This is very much what is occurring in the United
States now. George Floyd’s murder was the spark
that lit the conversation on things taken for granted
until now, on everything that was assumed to be
normal, and on a lot of other things that are needed
for us to fully develop as a society. Because of the
coronavirus pandemic, people have had to take a
step back and have had to re-evaluate where their
lives are headed. Now more than ever, many people
feel that they have nothing left to lose, and this allows
them to bear their truth in a way they’ve never been
able to.. What is being expressed now is simply a
collective sentiment of what needs changed if we are
to be able to adapt to the coming “new normal.”
Violence is not the answer, though. Change will only
take place if we are able to consciously express what
our experiences have been until now, how it made us
feel, and if we create and find the spaces to voice
those feelings. It is not about voicing sentiments so
that someone can rush to our aid to change anything
or to help us, but rather about being able to answer all
the questions that rise when someone, whoever it is,
and it whatever circumstance, undergoes a traumatic
event.
Trauma is anything that leaves an imprint on a human
being. It can be something as horrific as your father
getting murdered, or something as ‘subjective’ as
feeling neglected as a child. Different events can
raise many questions in your mind, on your body, on
your professional self, on the way you operate in the
world… It can be very challenging to deal with. As a
result, many people tend to shut down, especially if
they are never asked, “How are you doing? What are
you feeling? What’s going on inside of you?”
Everyone needs a space to express what they’re
going through. There’s a need for every person to be
heard. For me, being asked how my father’s death
affected me was a liberating experience. In a way, it
reminded me of what happened around the Berlin
Wall, when people sat together and they listened to
each other testify to the atrocities of the USSR. My
family and I, like the people who gathered around the
Wall, accepted each other’s pain, our fears, we wrote
them down… It was a kind of healing ritual. But,
above all, it ade me feel, for the first time in years, that
what I had to say, what I had experienced, had value.
Everybody needs that sense of value and
acknowledgement. Any healing process, the liberation
from pain and shame, requires us to be witnessed by
others. The situation of civil unrest unfolding today is
a perfect opportunity for people to share their stories
of discrimination and difficulties. They allow for a
public ritual where people are witnessed and can
relieve themselves of the pressure of feeling unheard.
The system is going to take a while to rebuild and it
will take time to heal. But for that to happen it is also
paramount that we are true to ourselves and have an
honest inner dialogue.
One of the things that brought me to a place of greater
peace with what happened to my father was looking at
the situation from absolutely every angle I could. If we
want to understand the underlying causes of the
unfolding social unrest, we need to approach the
situation in the same way. We need to be mindful,
detailed, intelligent and transparent in the way we talk
about and address the issues that occur. It is the only
way that we will understand how people come
together at a given moment, what the context is, what
led to a given outcome, and why events unfolded like
they did.
It is never as simple as “There’s a black guy and a
white guy and they just don’t get along.” For every
event that happens, there are very different lives
coming together in one moment. A lot of specific
individual choices and stories bring people together.
All details, the obvious and the subtle ones, the gore
and the humane… they all come into play. Every
single murder that any police officer has committed in
this country was an opportunity to examine all the
details, for us to understand what was at play for each
person. Yet, even today, after George Floyd’s heinous
murder, we’re failing to ask ourselves many
questions.
What brought all four police officers together in that
moment? Why were none of them able to challenge
Derek Chauvin? Why were people able to record what
was going on, but none of them were able to intercede
using their bodies, even if it was just an arm? Why
was nobody willing to put their integrity at risk? Where
is the $20 bill? I would like to see it. Where’s the
culpability of the person who called the police in the
first place? That person is the reason this situation
occurred in the first place, and that matters too. There
are many questions that are still unanswered, and
they all help explain how we reached this outcome.
Without these answers the story becomes the same
old narrative that takes us nowhere. We know racism
is happening. We know this is a racist culture. We
know it’s founded by people who were racist and
perpetuated by people who practice racism. But what
does calling someone a racist do? Nothing. We need
to ask ourselves more questions and look into the
details to understand what was actually at play. The
scary part of George Floyd’s death, beyond the
obvious power of white supremacy, was that his voice
didn’t matter. Neither did the rest of the other voices.
But the typical narrative of “white and excessively
forceful cop kills unarmed black man” is too simple of
an explanation, and we need to elevate ourselves
beyond that narrative if we truly want to get to a place
of understanding. Understanding is everything.
Life is about relationships. We can relate to ourselves
and to what we’re feeling because we’re built to relate
to ourselves. But we’re also built to relate to other
people, and we have free reign over how we choose
to relate. We’re totally free to treat people in any way
we want to. So there are people out there whose hate
and aggression when they could choose anything
else. And the question should be what is causing them
to make those choices. Understanding implies having
the empathy to even care to know where this person
who doesn’t agree with me is coming from. I know
where I come from, I’m confident about that, so I see
the interest and the challenge in trying to understand
others. That is what makes life so interesting. That
difference in approaches, in ways of thinking, in the
way we react… that’s what actual diversity is about.
And until we are ready to acknowledge that diversity,
to dissect what is at play in each person, to put
together the puzzle of any occurrence, we will be
unable to find peace and harmony in change.
It’s no secret that there are many people that don’t
see the benefit in changing anything. Those of us who
do, however, need to understand every detail of how
things come into being. Everything is simple until you
look into the details; without looking at the details,
everything that’s going on is just a massive force that
you have no way of overcoming without violence.
Being able to decipher and confront those details will
show us what is real and will force people to show
themselves. George Floyd showed us what was real.
The reality is that some people are still in denial. But
the reality is also that comprehending complex
underlying dynamics can show us how powerful we
really are and can reflect our true ability to face
transformation and changes occurring in our life.
We are living in a time where it is urgent to address a
myriad of issues that have gone unaddressed until
now. The whole planet has had to undergo a process
of re-evaluation, and everything has erupted at the
same time. As with every situation, though, we are
being given an opportunity. We can choose to see
chaos, or we can choose to see beauty; we can
choose to interpret it as the apocalypse, or we can
choose to interpret it as revelation; we can choose to
roll around in our disgrace, or we can rejoice in
excitement; we can choose to embrace despair, or we
can choose to embrace hope. However, if we have
any chance of survival in togetherness, we need
imagination, we need vision, and we need
courageous social leaders.

In my trip to Tibet, I came to understand death as For the first time in this generation, we are realizing
merely a period of transition into a rebirth. The what collective power can do. If everyone comes to-
situation of civil unrest unfolding before our eyes is gether at the same time with the same collective
exactly that, a passage of sorts. There is a new world power, change will happen, healing will happen. And it
that’s being shaped and we have no choice but to live will happen quickly. So, let’s dive into the details of
in it. We can fight against it, or we can flow with it. what brought us here, let’s embrace our diversity, and
People are just going to have to really see the power let’s face our societal trauma. Let’s speak, let’s dis-
of their own minds to see how they’re going to agree. Let’s change, together.
proceed. If people don’t have the power to see how
they’re going to discern things and decide to fight
change, they are going to perish. Even if they survive,
they will not be mentally well, they will not be able to
be happy, and they will not be able to thrive in the
world that’s coming. This new beginning requires the
steadfastness of being to say “We’re going through a
transformation, we’re going through a reincarnation
as a species, what do I want to see?”

The problem is we are suffering from a global crisis of

imagination. We’ve had so many advancements in
many areas, yet we are still stuck in patterns of the
past, living for and by the ideas of people who died
300 years ago. This was made apparent as a result of
COVID-19. So many lives were lost to the pandemic.
Again, however, we need to dive into the details. Yes,
the virus is deadly. But we also denied the disease
from the moment any outbreak happened anywhere
in the world, and we perpetuated archaic approaches
to emergency situations that differentiated us and
pushed us further apart rather than bring us together.
So, was the high number of deaths only a result of
COVID’s virulence, or was it also that our lack of co-
hesiveness and togetherness, the lack of good
relationships globally, led to the spread of
coronavirus?
If you or anybody you know has been touched or affected by the hate of anther or
by a hate-based movement in any way, please call our 24/7 Helpline: 

202-486-8633
parallelnetworks@pnetworks.org 
 THE CURE FOR HATE:
A FORMER
WHITE SUPREMACIST’S
JOURNEY FROM
VIOLENT EXTREMISM
TO RADICAL COMPASSION
BY TONY MCALEER
NOTE: THIS IS AN EXCERPT FROM THE AUTHOR’S IMPORTANT
NEW BOOK, CURE FOR HATE, AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE HERE
In 2005, about a month or two after the retreat, I was still processing the experience – to
the point where a friend said that I sometimes went “away with the faeries” for brief
periods. Then I watched What the Bleep Do We Know?!, a film that explores the spiritual
connection between quantum physics and consciousness, along the central theme of
“We create our own reality.” I found the intersection ofscience and spirituality fascinating.
Shortly afterwards, in this period of curiosity and exploration of new ideas and different
ways of looking at things, I attended an introductory lecture about getting out of your own
way and achieving success. It was here that I signed up for a weekend workshop
facilitated by someone named Döv Baron.

Immediately, I felt drawn to Döv. He was about ten years older than me, from
Mancheste
Manchester, and industrial city in the northwest of England, similar to my
hometown of Liverpool, and we bonded over a shared quirky British sense of humour
and a love of Monty Python. His works were taught from the intersection point of
quantum physics, metaphysics (or spirituality), and psychology. They were designed to
help people change their inner dialogue and step out of their
conditioning to take control of their lives: to move from an unconscious life to a
conscious one, to become awakened to the true nature of reality and who we are.

My mind was resistant to what I thought of as the woo-woo side of things, but I found
myself deeply interested in the quantum physics explanation for the spiritual. The
psychology component of the workshop was about healing early traumas and wounds
that had cast a shadow over your life. “Don’t let your past put your future in a headlock”
was a quote that really resonated with me.

As I delved deeper into the teaching from Döv’s workshop, my life began to improve in
remarkable ways. In the beginning, my focus was on my career and financial success,
but it didn’t take long for it to shift to something much, much deeper. About ten months
after I met Döv, my friend Damien, who had introduced us, handed me an envelope for
my birthday. Excitedly, I tore it open and pulled out a gift certificate for an introductory
one-on-one counselling session with Döv. Oh great, I thought to myself. Best present
ever. Who doesn’t want to go to therapy for their birthday? But I had just begun to
scratch the surface of my self-exploration, and I was curious to discover what lay beneath.
So a few days later, I called to make an appointment and then went to my very first
counselling session.

I sat down on the couch across from Döv and we engaged in a few minutes of small talk
before we got into it. He asked me about my childhood. I gave him all the reasons why I
was angry: at my dad for not being there and for his betrayal, at my school for the
beatings. But I paused when it came to the next part of my story, about becoming a
skinhead, a neo-Nazi, the violence, and all the harm I had done with my tongue
and with my pen. I froze, unable to proceed. A million thoughts of shame and guilt mixed
with a myriad of fearful calculations – What if? Should I tell him? – and I hesitated to
speak. I was afraid to tell him the whole truth about who I was and what I had done. This
was a relationship, a friendship, that I had only begun to enjoy and value. When people
found out about my past, the relationships usually ended, and I was
terrified of losing this one. “Just spit it out,” he said. “It’s
“It okay, mate. It is safe here.”

Despite his reassurances, I was still paralyzed by the dread of judgement and loss. Finally,
with great fear and trepidation, I allowed the floodgates to open and started blurting out the
Reader’s Digest version of my story.

But the more I told him, the more he smiled; and the more he smiled, the more I became
annoyed. I thought to myself, Why is he smiling? Here I am baring my soul, and this guy
thinks I’m hilarious.

Irritated, I asked him, “What

“What’s so funny?”

Döv leaned over the coffee table with a grin from ear to ear and said, “You know I was born
Jewish, right?”

Of course he was. The irony of that wasn’t lost on me as I began to sink into the couch,
the cheeks burning with deep shame. This was a person whom I considered a friend, a
person who wanted the best for me, wanted to heal me, and here I was, sitting across the
coffee table from him, knowing that I had once advocated for the annihilation of him and
his people.

While I was trying to process the implications of this moment, Döv spoke. “This is what you
did. It is not who you are.” Then he pointed at me. “I see you. I see the little boy inside of
you. I see Little Tony.”

No sooner had those words left his lips than I broke down sobbing. In that moment, when
I felt so worthless, I was overcome by his acknowledgment of the humanity within me,
even knowing the harm I’d done to his people. When I felt I deserved it the least, I could
feel the warmth of his compassion. If this man could love me, there is no reason why I
couldn’t learn to love myself. Compassion from somebody we don’t feel we deserve it
from, especially from someone who comes from a community we have dehumanized, is
incredibly powerful. (But I am not suggesting for a minute that it is the responsibility of
members of marginalized communities to take this on.)

If empathy is feeling was somebody else is feeling in their suffering, then compassion is
empathy plus action – the desire to alleviate the suffering of other. Empathy + Action =
Compassion. Radical compassion goes a step further and takes us outside of our comfort
zone: having compassion for people we don’t like, being willing to take a risk or experience
some discomfort, or finally, wanting to go even further and engage in social change
through our compassion, to change the environment that is the source of the suffering
we witness in the world.

Radical compassion starts with the compassion for the self, which amplifies our capacity
to serve others. To face our fears, our pain, to push through the discomfort of
vulnerability, is one of the most radical acts we can undertake. The more I can
understand myself, the more I can understand others. The more I can feel within myself,
the more I can feel others. And the more I can have compassion for myself, the more I
can have compassion for others.

The journey inward to know ourselves is crucial to radical compassion, as it provides the
necessary balance to truly effect change. If we have compassion for others and not for
ourselves, then it is not about compassion but about ego, about being seen to be
compassionate. And if we have compassion for ourselves and no one else, then it is not
compassion but narcissism. Compassion within and compassion without – the two in
balance – is a truly powerful combination, a place from which our fear and
judgement can transform into understanding and healing. That which we don’t
transform, we transmit.

That moment when I received radical compassion from my mentor Döv marked the
beginning of an incredible journey deep into the darkest reaches of my subconscious –
a journey toward the fear, toward the wounds, toward the pain that had cast their
shadows across my life until then, the pain that I had been running away from my entire
life. In both one-on-one and group counselling sessions, I spent more than 1,000 hours
in self-discovery, uncovering and healing these wounds, and observing the same
process in others. Rewriting the belief systems at the core of my being and pulling of the
layers of masks to learn who the authentic me was and to reconnect to my humanity and
to Little Tony. Understanding how I ended up in the dark woods, and how I eventually
found my way out so that others could learn from my journey.
 ORDER THE BOOK HERE

How does an affluent, middle-class, private-ssool-aaending son of a dooor end up at the Aryan Naaons
compound in Idaho, falling in with and then recruiing for some of the moo notorious neo-Nazi groups in Canada and
the United States?

The Cure for Hate paints a very human piiure of a young man who craved aaennon, acceptance, and approval and the
dark place he would go to get it. Tony McAleer found an outlet for his teenage rage in the reet violence of the skinhead
scene. He then grew deeply involved in the White Aryan Resiiance (WAR), rising through the ranks to become a leader,
and embraced teenology and the budding internet to bring white naaonalii propaganda into the digital age. AAer
fifieen years in the movement, it was the outpouring of love he felt at the birth of his ildren that inspired him to art
quessoning his hateful beliefs. Thus began the spiritual journey of personal transformaaon that enabled him to
disengage from the highee levels of the white power movement.

This incisive book breaks commonly held ereotypes and delivers valuable insights into how regular people are drawn
to violent extremism, how the ideology takes hold, and the bee ways to help someone leave hate behind. In his candid
and introspeccve memoir, Tony shares his perspeccve gleaned from over a thousand hours of therapy, group work, and
facilitaang ange in others that reveals the deeper psyyological causes behind racism. At a period in hiiory when
innances of racial violence are on the upswing, The Cure for Hate demonnrates that in a society frighteningly divided
by hate and in need of healing, perhaps atonement, forgiveness, and moo importantly, radical compassion is the cure.
 MULTIFACETED ANSWERS TO AN
AGE OF IMPENDING UNCERTAINTY
BY
BRAD GALLOWAY
We are living in uncertain and complex times. A global
pandemic brought about a prolonged period of social
isolation, the full consequences of which are still
unknown. Quarantine was followed by a sudden out-
burst of civil unrest, detonated by the heinous murder
of George Floyd, which was largely a reflection of un-
derlying racial and social tensions that had been bot-
tled up for years. To add fuel to the fire, the U.S. is
preparing for the November Presidential elections.
In this context, extremists are thriving. Jihadist groups
like al-Qaeda and ISIS called COVID-19 “a soldier
from Allah;” more recently, al-Qaeda’s general
command tried to take advantage of protests against
the killing of George Floyd through a four-page state-
ment, “A Message for the Oppressed Masses in the
West,” issued to a Western audience to encourage
those “who have risen up in revolt in America” against
a government that is “subjugating and killing poor,
impoverished Christians, the helpers of Jesus.” At
home, right-wing accelerationists are using the
pandemic and the social protests to push narratives
that induce violence and prepare their followers for an
impending civil war.
Extremism flourishes where there is disruption and
divide. Unpredictability is the perfect tool for
recruitment and radicalization. Those facing an
unforeseeable future will turn to extremism as a
means of finding answers that will help them cope. As
we struggle with the economic and psychological
aftermath of the pandemic, there are no clear
indications of what the “new normal” will look like. To
prevent further polarization and social divides from
being part of that “new normal” we have the duty and
responsibility to present individuals and communities
with alternative, nuanced narratives that paint a
broader picture of current events. Only then will true
change occur.
The extremist discourse is attractive because it
oversimplifies highly complex matters. Take how
far-right extremists have been behaving over the past
months. First, they used the #Open(InsertStateHere)
rallies to push the idea that corrupt governments are
seeking to deprive citizens of their most basic rights;
there was never a fact-based debate on the
consequences of not following social distancing or not
wearing a mask. Now, violence derived from the Black
Lives Matter protests is shown as evidence of their
long-predicted race war; there was never any debate
on whether black Americans have a right to demand
equal treatment, and what the historical roots of those
grievances are. Instead, far-right extremists
strategically cherry-pick images and clips that
delegitimize those they consider to be their enemy.
As a society, we cannot reduce our analysis of the
current situation to the black and white mentality of
extremists. We need to be able to think broadly and
critically. It is vital that we are able to truly answer one
basic question in detail: why are we in this situation?
Of course, we could limit our answers to ‘social
disparities,’ ‘systemic racism’ and ‘police brutality.’ Yet,
disparities,
that simple-mindedness is not very different from the
way in which far-right extremists reduce everything to
race issues and violence. We need to be able to dig
deeper and dissect every issue carefully. For every
action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So,
what sequence of events led us to this situation? And
under which context did those events happen? What
are the historical reasons for that specific context?
Asking ourselves these questions and being able to
answer them honestly and openly might be the only
way forward in these coming times of chronic anxiety.
We don’t know what the future holds, but we will most
certainly face new problems going forward. We have
to consider that we still don’t know enough about this
pandemic to guarantee that new lockdowns will not
have to be enforced; we are most likely unprepared for
the economic backlash of a potential second wave of
COVID-19; we do not have the mechanisms in place
to address the consequences that a new period of
social isolation could have on our mental health. Not
being able to address those issues head on might
unfortunately cause more people to gravitate towards
the ‘solutions’ offered by far-right extremists. And we
are definitely not ready to face the risks derived from
having to take sides in an increasingly polarized
sociopolitical context.
However, these times also present an opportunity. We
can either play in the extremists’ playground and
contribute to increased division and fear, or we can
develop more efficient mechanisms to address all the
questions that remain unanswered. The future is as
complex as the dynamics developing in front of us
now. We can limit ourselves to one-track answers and
repeat the same mistakes we have made unto now, or
we can respond in a way that acknowledges the
multidimensional nature of the challenges that may lay
ahead. Change is necessary, but only a 360° picture
and proper counter-narratives to the extremist
discourse will allow for that change to happen
bottom-up and be sustainable. However, in order for
our narratives to be effective, they need to match our
actions. We cannot talk about alternatives to
extremism and necessary changes if we ourselves are
not willing to undergo the same re-examination
process that we ask extremists to make.
It may not be easy, but the opportunity is there. For
example, there are no programs in the U.S. that
address the specific needs of those returning home
after having served time for terror-related offenses.
There was no need for the government to invest in
such programs. The context has changed, however,
and little by little conversations have started taking
place regarding this future need. The rise in arrests for
right-wing extremism suggests we should move to
address this need now. This new context presents an
opportunity to develop new dynamics. Along with that
opportunity came the realization that the problem of
reintegration did not just imply deradicalization, but it
was a multifaceted phenomenon that oftentimes
implied tapping into already existing resources, such
as substance abuse and mental health counselling.
Similarl
Similarly, we do not need to reinvent the wheel to
address the threat posed by the rise of the far-right.
There is research. There has been work down on the
ground. We have grassroots initiatives and
government programs in place, and we know what
works and what doesn’t. Ahead of us lies an
opportunity to develop programs that are
multidimensional in nature and that provide
multifaceted answers. Now is the time to develop new
initiatives, raise new talking points and implement
programmatic changes. It is the perfect opportunity to
provide grassroots initiatives with the necessary
resources to reach out to as many communities as
possible and involve as many local actors as possible
in the fight against extremism and hate.
There is a lot of work to be done, but luckily we have
the tools to protect our communities. We are facing
very serious issues that threaten our societies
everywhere, but we can all play a part as we move in
the right direction. Our future depends on the way we
react today. We need to pause in the space between
stimulus and response and proceed cautiously, the
fault lines to fuel the far-right grievance are there
and much that seems to be going on may only
exacerbate it.

by
Acacia
Dietz
Recently I went public about my involvement in the
National Socialist Movement (NSM). I was one of
those women who had become absorbed by the
movement’s ideas of justice and protection against
the social issues that affected white communities
across the United States. The traditional role of
women in the NSM is that of caretakers; they are the
ones in charge of preparing for the next generation to
take over. The NSM, however, was one of the few
far-right movements which also had women in leader-
ship roles, such as regional directors. I was in one of
those leadership roles as a propagandist for the
movement.
I cringe when I see news headlines talking about how
the far-right is profiting from the current situation of vi-
olence. I realize that we are, inadvertently, handing
them potential recruits on a platter. The current cir-
cumstances of social unrest are the perfect ‘promo
material’ for the far-right. I would know. As a propa-
gandist with the NSM, I did everything from social
media and graphic design, to podcasts and radio-
casts. I know the word ‘propaganda’ is the first thing
that comes to mind when one talks about extremist
groups, but this is an oversimplification that only pre-
vents us from seeing that the far-right’s efforts to dis-
seminate their views are more than just manipulative
tactics used to supply false information.
By branding the far-right’s messaging efforts simply
as ‘propaganda’ we overlook how much of it inter-
twines with marketing and advertising. The far-right’s
FAR-RIGHT
MESSAGING:
THE ART OF
POLITICAL
MARKETING
messaging is dangerous not just because of the
ideas it spreads, but because they are able to make it
appealing to people who are initially not racist or
sectarian chauvinists. Many people arrive at the
far-right’s door simply looking for answers. Then
efforts are no longer only about ‘selling’ a product (the
ideology), but also about ‘customer education,’
targeting’
targeting an intended audience and ‘evoking
feelings.’ The far-right does not do propaganda.
Far-right messaging is political propaganda. Failing
to understand this subtle nuance will render us
incapable of staying one step ahead of the far-right
and ultimately convincing those at risk that choosing
hate comes with a price.
When one thinks about propaganda, we obviously
think about politics, not products. Propaganda is
supposed to appeal to the guiding set of beliefs or
ideals that characterize a community, a nation or an
ideology. Since the 1980’s, however, brands and their
marketing techniques increasingly resemble
propaganda. Take Apple, for example. Among the
slogans that the company has used since the early
1980’s are: “Soon there will be two kinds of people:
those who use computers, and those who use
Apples;” “The computer for the rest of us;” “The
Power to Be Your Best” and “Think Different.” Like in
propaganda, the brand no longer appeals to the
functionality or benefits of products, but rather to the
consumer’s self-image (exclusivity) and promises to
fulfill their aspirations (belonging and recognition).
Companies have managed to create affinity for a
product by connecting it to existing beliefs and view-
points, thereby creating an ethos or character around
the brand. As a result, companies like Apple are no
longer limiting themselves to advertising, but have
transitioned into a ‘psychological war’ of sorts against
their “enemies” (other competitors in the market) to
gain new clients and develop client loyalty. The trick
lies in persuading by appealing to sentiments
(emotions) and promising to fulfill certain
expectations that go beyond the product itself and tap
into underlying feelings and desires.
The far-right is not very different to companies such
as Apple in the way they operate. Some will argue
that the purpose of Apple is not to lie, but rather
highlight how their exclusive, high-end products are
the solution to an increasingly demanding work
environment. Others will suggest that ideas are not
products such as phones and computers that can be
purchased, sold and updated every other year. There
will also be those that bring up the fact that, in the age
of mass production, differentiation and aggressive
techniques are necessary to ensure brand success.
They would all be correct. Yet, globalization and mass
communications have turned the world into a
marketplace of ideas.
Ideas are not so much products as they are services.
Services are, like ideas, intangible; ideas, like
services, provide benefits by satisfying identified
needs. In an age of identity politics, ideology provides
an identity where there is otherwise none. Ideas offer
answers for those struggling with the commodification
of everyday life aspects, they provide a sense of relief
by accounting the social realities people see around
them and pushing narratives of ‘credit and blame,’
and they provide comfort by constructing a perceived
sense of belonging to a certain group. Like Apple, the
far-right’s efficacy is based on fulfilling expectations
and desires, and by developing trust with ‘consumers’
(supporters).
The reason why the far-right’s ‘services’ continue to
be appropriate for certain societal sectors is because
they have mastered the art of promotion. In marketing
terms, promotion is not the dissemination of a
product, but the different ways in which a company
tells customers about their product. When it comes to
‘packaging’ ideas, the far-right will rarely present itself
openly as a racist, totalitarian movement. Rather, it
will initiate contact with new ‘customers’ and promote
ideas by addressing whatever the hottest political
debate is.
For example, when I was in the movement,
immigration was the political debate at hand. In
public, the NSM would indeed express anti-immigrant
views, but there was always a caveat: “we only
oppose illegal immigration.” Whether morally correct
or not, this view was shared by many Americans, and
it was easy for the movement to exploit and profit
from it. Not all individuals who initially come into
contact with the NSM are racist, nor have they
pondered the idea of white supremacy. Therefore, to
become better positioned in the hearts and minds of
potential recruits or adherents, the NSM strategically
presents its ideas as conservative rather than
inflammatory and bigoted.
It may seem easier to think about it in terms of a TV
advertisement. An enticing short 20-second clip can
make a product or service appealing enough for the
potential client or consumer to do more research and
eventually seek out the product or service on his/her
own. Similarly, during my time at the NSM we made
sure to publicly espouse values and develop
attributes that would be appealing to a larger
segment of conservative-leaning citizens. Our
objective was to make them come to us, and not have
us go to them. From there, “customer education” was
easy.
“Customer education” is providing customers with
tools and resources so that they can progressively
adopt a service/product, to progressively reduce
friction through documentation and strengthen
retention by connecting individual customers to a
larger community of users.These sorts of programs
allow for companies to ‘educate’ every customer at
scale, ensure that all customers get the same level of
information, and increases customer satisfaction and
thereby trust in the brand and products.

Once again, Apple appears as the perfect example. If

any of its users has a question over the company’s
products, they will be able to “find answers with
millions of other Apple users” part of Apple’s “vibrant
community.” The company has gone so far as to
develop Apple User Groups, for “people who use
Apple technologies” and have come “together in user
groups all around the world. Hundreds of groups offer
members the chance to become friends with other
Apple product users, get questions answered and
have a lot of fun.”

Extremist movements have also learned from the

same marketing techniques. Essentially, it is the
perfect mechanism to recruit and indoctrinate individ-
uals. When someone contacted the NSM directly with
questions or out of mere curiosity, the next step would
be to redirect them to ‘educational material’ that
would gradually instruct them on the topic. Of course,
‘customer care’ was paramount: a question would
never go answered and an explanation was never
lacking. And, as ‘customer loyalty’ increased and trust
was built, the individual was progressively immersed
into more ‘private groups,’ thus enhancing the sense
of exclusivity and belonging. Once embedded in a
group, peer-influence and reinforcement only
increases the likelihood of retaining customers.

In the same way group dynamics within the Apple

User communities strengthen the “Apple experience”
and further distance Apple from other competitors in
the eye of customers, group dynamics within the
far-right also supplement ‘propaganda’ efforts. It
allows for an inward and outward “psychological war”
that further persuade adherents and that delegitimize
and attempt to undermine ‘the enemy’ in a persistent
and systematic manner. For the far-right, there will
also be “two kinds of people:” whites and non-whites;
“the rest of us” are those who feel left out from an
increasingly globalized world; “power” does not come
from having the latest computer, but from standing up
for oneself: non-conformity is what makes you “
different.”

Using memes and degrading name-calling, the

far-right encourages hostility and rejection against
‘outsiders;’ they mislead people through the use of at-
tractive and impressive words (e.g. ‘heroic protectors’
of the ‘white race’); they present causes (e.g.
immigration) as part of a larger project (the necessary
In-person meetings create bonds. Once that personal
connection is established, it is no longer about ideology,
politics or grievances, it is about kinship; it is about love,
trust and life-bonding. I witnessed it among many women
who had followed their men into the movement, as a form
of support. This has nothing to do with sexism, however.
The same principle of kinship can be applied to family
members and friends. Studies in the field of jihadism have
shown that preexisting friendship and kinship ties facilitate
recruitment into extremist milieus. The far-right is no
different. And they are no different than consumers who
buy a product because their friend/family member/
neighbor told them about a product or service’s benefits.

If we are to successfully combat the far-right’s ‘political

marketing,’ we need to bear in mind one of marketing’s
primary principles: marketing is best when it is honest and
sincere. In the current context of civil unrest we need to
set forth efforts that speak truthfully about our feelings as
individuals and a nation, and that are fair towards all
individuals that make up our society. We will all pay the
price if we fail to do so. Those who don’t ‘buy into’
extremist narratives will be increasingly pressured to
choose sides and will be forced to live in a
progressively excluding society; those who unfortunately
do end up adopting extremist beliefs, will pay the
psychological and emotional toll of hate. The
consequences of it all might be non-refundable.
For over 20 years, I was head of the National Socialist Movement (NSM) in the United States. I
left the far-right over a year ago and since then have worked tirelessly to make amends, applying
the leadership skills and knowledge from my past to the realm of peacebuilding.

My disengagement and deradicalization were largely a result of my interactions with Daryl

Davis, an African American activist, and Deeyah Kahn, a documentary film director and
human rights activist of Punjabi/Pashtun descent. Through dialogue we were able to con-
nect at a level deeper than I even realized at the time. Both Daryl and Deeyah challenged
me; made me think twice; and helped me see that my life was based on misconceptions.
All it took was openness, acknowledgment, respect and sincerity.

What I could have never imagined is that those conversations with Daryl and Deeyah would
become so timely and so necessary so quickly. After George Floyd’s heinous murder, the United
States erupted. Rightful activism and protesting quickly turned into riots and destruction. Talks
about the “Boogaloo” fuel fears of an impending civil war. The left and right extremes are taking
control of the narrative leaving no room for middle ground or dialogue. If this continues, many fear
we all may be forced to take a side, thereby removing dialogue with those we feel may be the
cause of society’s ills out of the equation.
As someone who has been part of that extreme and polarizing faction of society, I feel for the aver-
age American. I feel for the elderly, who are living their last years in a very confusing and some-
times anxiety-inducing context. I feel for those who have dedicated their careers to advocacy in
favor of peace and engagement, whose efforts are now being discredited by small violent fringes.
I feel for those who don’t see the need to destroy, burn and tear down in order to induce necessary
conversation on social justice. Above all, I worry for those who will, unfortunately but inevitably, find
comfort in the ideas pushed by the far-right.

It is sometimes discouraging to see how this increasingly polarized context is making anxiety the
hallmark of this ‘new normal.’ Since I left the movement, I have helped many leave far-right
extremism and have been in touch with others who also left, years before I did. They are not in
the media, they are not in the spotlight; they have now become everyday citizens going on about
their lives. Yet, the overall sentiment they express is one of fear and preoccupation. It has noth-
ing to do with re-radicalization; it is the hopelessness of not wanting to feed into the extremist
narrative by choosing sides but at the same time raising the same question many of us asks
ourselves: what are we supposed to do?

We have the opportunity of a lifetime in front of

us. As a country and as one human race, we are
at a crossroad. We can either replicate what
extremists do and continue to sheepishly follow
“ All it took was
openness,
“the movement”, or we can choose to heal. Now
is the time to break prejudices and hate that are acknowledgement,
deeply rooted in America’s history. And the way to
heal is not by further fueling polarization and respect,
imposing a worldview that stems from the prison

“
of our own minds, our cognitive biases and our and sincerity.
preconceived notions, but rather by acknowledg-
ing who we are as a nation.

Yes, the slave trade happened and it devastated entire communities. Yes, black communities
have suffered things that would be unimaginable for other social groups. It is also true that there
is a percentage of other Americans who no longer feel represented by government bodies. Yet, we
have managed to present these conversations as mutually excluding discourses instead of realiz-
ing that they walk hand in hand. Not all communities have the same needs, not all people are
facing the same difficulties, but we are all part of society and none of us can go unheard. Demoniz-
ing those who are outside ‘our group’ will not eradicate ‘the other.’ It will only make them feel
increasingly marginalized and increasingly angry.

Leaving the movement gave me nuance. It allowed me to have a better understanding of the
struggles and grievances of other collectives. Now more than ever I affirm myself in the notion
that nothing positive can come out of absolutist narratives like “all cops are murderers” or “all
(insert race or nationality here) are criminals.” Now more than ever I believe in the power of
dialogue and compromise.
The question is what we are willing to compromise on as a society. But the question cannot be
answered without honest, sincere and respectful dialogue. The social fabric we are all part of is
much more complex than a racist vs. anti-racist’ discourse.

America is ready for

change, but change needs
to be concise and realistic.
In this case, extreme situa-
tions cannot lead to
extreme solutions. If the
long-term objective is to
eradicate hate-fueled
narratives, we need to start
by giving dialogue, empa-
thy and understanding a
chance.

This is a valuable lesson that both Daryl and Deeyah taught me, and that is why I think of them when all
I see is violence and destruction on the news. They could have chosen not to engage with me when I
was a neo-Nazi. They could have just assumed I was evil and deserved no acknowledgement.

Instead, Daryl and Deeyah were convinced that we

had more in common than different. Even if the
results were not immediate,their approach with
compassion and understanding managed to plant
the seeds that changed my life. I cannot help but
wonder how society could benefit from more people
willing to approach this crisis like Daryl and
Deeyah did with me.

It will take resolution, it will take courage and it will

take time. But if we want our children to live in a
world where barriers are eradicated and hate no
longer exists, it is worth considering whether we
want to continue fueling the fire or if we want to be
efficient and effective. Maybe the most outlandish
of options, finding a middle way, is our only way out.
Future generations will hold us accountable for
everything that is going on today and for the way
we choose to respond. I can only ask myself: Is
violence and further divisiveness the legacy we
want to leave behind?
LightUponLight.Online
 Deconstructing
White Supremacy
By
Daryl Davis &
Matt Heimbach
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these
accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little
corner of the earth all one’s lifetime.” -Mark Twain
The heinous murder of George Floyd has made us
realize that we are facing a moment of great trial and
tribulation, some might say a reckoning of sorts.
However, crucial conversations on race and equity
have come alongside further hyper-polarization,
intolerance, frustration and hate.
For the careful observer, signs point less to a future
built on social justice and more to a future marked by
division, discord and the real possibility of societal
collapse. The current unrest vividly portrays our
society’s fragile condition and documents an overall
ethos marked by tremendous disharmony, a
resounding sense of ‘us vs. them,’ more akin to author-
itarianism and dictatorship than to the reasoned
acknowledgement of the overwhelming similarities of
all humankind.
Twain’s quote is a timely metaphor for what is needed
if our democratic experiment is to continue advancing
its core cause of individual freedom for all. Like
traveling, conversation is also fatal to prejudice, bigotry
and narrow-mindedness. Conversations require us to
come out of comfort zone and explore unknown
territory. They allow us to push ourselves to our limits
territor
and to discover realities that we may have never
known existed. They allow us to find ourselves and find
others along the way.
We, better than most, know this firsthand.
One of us was a high-ranking extreme far-right
ideologue. The other, a black man and world renown
musician, who has embarked on a journey for more
than two decades to help individuals disengage from
the fundamental belief that the worth of others rests on
the color of their skin. Yet, as different as our life
trajectories and backgrounds are and have been, we
both reached the same valuable conclusion: we are all
one human race.
We came to this realization independently, through
very different experiences, but it was largely a result of
giving a chance and being given a chance to speak
openly and honestly about what our experiences and
those of others had been, and what our hopes and
desires were. Honest and sincere conversations are
the best recipe for understanding. It matters very little
where we come from, who our parents were, what
school we studied at, so on and so forth. At the end of
the day, we all want the same thing: we want to be
loved, respected, heard, to be able to provide for our
families and give our children the best future possible.
Those desires are not determined by the color of our
skin, but rather by our underlying human nature. These
days, most of us forget that when thinking of the
people on the other side, whatever that might mean.
Unfortunately, the increasing hyperpolarization we see manifesting and worsening currently only
reinforces the general idea that “a tiger doesn’t change its stripes.” We assume that ‘the other,’
those who think or look different from us, are driven by some strange internal force that we
cannot understand nor change. Yet, one of us left white nationalism largely due to his friendly
interactions with Antifa members he used to fight and demonstrations; the other, as a black man,
has been able to plant seeds of change in hundreds of Klansmen who eventually gave up their
robes. The key in both situations was that everybody was given a chance to be heard.

It is not always easy. Individual attitudes and mindsets are marked by very different contexts. All
of us have preconceived notions and inherent cognitive biases that prevent us from
acknowledging ‘the other’ in a way that elevates beyond a fight-or-flight response. When
somebody encounters their ‘nemesis,’ their basic survival instincts put their brain and bodies in
defensive mode. Their walls are up, and they’d rather attack than leave the floor open for any
interaction that may question or even challenge what one believes to be the truth.

As a society, we have become better at building walls than at tearing them down, at pushing back
and cancelling rather than listening, at corroborating what we already believe to be true than at
pushing ourselves to find new answers or explanations, at retaliating violently rather than
defending ourselves with nuance. As a society, we have led ourselves to believe that simply
silencing the other will suffice to make them disappear. But, like Hunter S. Thompson wrote his
book “Hell's Angels: A Strange and Terrible Saga”:
“There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know
where it is are the ones who have gone over. The others -the living-are those who
pushed their control as far as they felt they could handle it, and then pulled back,
or slowed down, or did whatever they had to when it came time to choose
between Now and Later. But the edge is still out there.”
What does it matter if my ‘nemesis’ speaks something that is untrue, even offensive? Is shutting
them down with verbal and/or physical violence going to change their mind, or will it rather
reinforce their stance? As a society, we need to learn how to answer these very uncomfortable
questions.

We individually did so, in different ways. We learned who we are. We learned to be

uncomfortable. We learned to share and to be open-minded, and we learned that our realities
were only as real as our individual experiences made them. This allowed us to slowly tear down
our walls and those of others, and we managed to see that the myriad of things we have in
common with those we hold to be different from us are more important than the ways in which
we go about any existing differences.

Our individual experiences also taught us another valuable lesson: ignorance causes fear; we
end up hating whatever causes us fear; and we seek to destroy what we hate. Destruction, hate
and fear are only symptoms; ignorance lies at the root. In general, we ignore who we are as
individuals and as a nation. We ignore that distinctions between ‘whites’ and ‘blacks’ have
nothing to do with skin color and have more to do with established legal privileges that sought to
separate poor white indentured servants and farmers from black slaves, in order to prevent
uprisings like the 1676 Bacon’s Rebellion. As a nation, we ignore how those fabricated narratives
continued unto the Civil War, when black slaves were forced to fight for the state’s rights to
enslave human beings, and poor working class ‘rednecks’ were tricked into fighting, thinking that
they were fighting to preserve their right to compete against free labor. These divisions have
persisted unto today.

That ignorance has created fear and hate. The far-right continues to exploit a race-based
discourse and appeals to historical sentiments to justify their sense of superiority; on the other
extreme, there are individuals who feel inherently superior to those who have come to the
wrongful conclusion that race should determine your place in our society.
On all extremes of the spectrum, society is stuck in a mindset of (moral) superiority that is
preventing us from seeing that black Americans looking for a rightly deserved equal treatment are
not very different to whites who feel that ‘all lives should matter’ because they are suffering from a
rampant economic and health crisis as well. They all have very different experiences and very
di
different realities. They are all looking for the same thing. Yet, they often hate each other simply
because they adhere to oversimplified race-and-privilege narratives that are seldom based on
nuance and an understanding of individual realities.

Recent protests make it seem like we are closing the race gap. The U.S. is witnessing a great
number of white Americans marching streets across the country in defense of Black Lives Matter.
However, not all of them belong to BLM. Some of them are whites who are simply in favor of civil
liberties and rights. Yet this togetherness is not a radically new concept. During the 50’s, there
were also white Americans advocating for the civil rights of black Americans. They were also there
in support of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. So, why have things not changed? Is it because we are
inherently racist? Is it because people don't want change?

The answer is easy. As a society, we simply forgot to talk about the conversations that are most
controversial. We have allowed our pre-conceived notions of ‘the other’ to take control, and we are
more comfortable with accepting those inherent biases than with challenging them. It is easier to
shut down anything we don’t want to hear rather than ask ourselves why the person in front of me
feels the way they do. We have allowed our cognitive biases to cast aside those who are not ‘like
us’ and to eradicate the thought that we are all human beings. As long as society doesn’t
recognize that, we will all be perpetuating the same fabricated di
differences that have been tearing
us apart for years.

Ignorance can only be fought organically. Racism and hate can only be trickled from the bottom
down and not the other way around. Not everything is in history books, and people need to
educate themselves to get an objective picture of a common reality. We are one America, made
up of very different, individual American experiences. But until society is not ready to discuss, be
uncomfortable and even be offended, we will not be able to implement changes necessary for
society as a whole.

None of us have the final decision over ‘the other’ reconsidering their viewpoint. Yet, we do have
an individual responsibility when it comes to talking with the other person, rather than to, at or
passed them. We have the individual responsibility to educate others we encounter, sometimes
not with our words but merely an emanation of compassion and kindness. We also need to let
others educate us on theirs. There is something that can be learned from every human being. We
have the individual duty to eradicate fear by eliminating ignorance through conversation. Only
then can we work towards a real understanding; only then can we transform the current
circumstance of chaos into an opportunity for true transformative change, at individual and
collective levels.

Mark Twain also said that we cannot be “vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one’s
lifetime.” Neither can we spend our lives negating the existence and realities of ‘the other.’ As
Twain proposed traveling as a solution to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, meaningful
and inclusive dialogue is the only way to construct useful collective lived experience. In the words
of Maya Angelou:
“By demonstrating that all peoples cry, laugh,
eat, worry and die, it can introduce the idea that
if we try and understand each other, we may
even become friends.”
 In 2009, Ivan Humble joined the English Defence League (EDL), a far-right and
Islamophobic organization, in response to the provocations of radical Islamist preacher
Anjem Choudary. Today he is an anti-hate campaigner working with groups all over the
INTERVIEW U.K. to tackle radicalization and extremism. We spoke with Ivan Humble to discuss the
current climate of polarization and radicalization currently affecting both the U.S. and the
WITH U.K.

The protests sparked by the death of George Floyd have had a spill-over effect in the
U.K. It not the first time that this happens. For example, in 2013 Hundreds of

I
anti-racists rallied and marched in central London in protest against racism and injustice
and demanding justice for Trayvon Martin; in 2016, London saw BLM mobilize in
response to the fatal shootings of Philando Castile in Minnesota and Alton Sterling in

V
Louisiana. Can you tell us a bit about the background of BLM in the U.K.? What
similarities and differences do you see with BLM in the U.S.?

To be honest with you, when I first saw the BLM happen in America I supported it. I saw

A
what happened to George Floyd, and it was indeed horrible. When I saw the first
uprisings, I thought “This is what you want to see, peaceful demonstrations.” But when
it spiraled into violence in America it kind of got me thinking.

N
When the BLM started here, a few days after George Floyd’s murder, my initial reaction
was the same: “Good, they’re going to do something to bring about change.” But then it
was quickly overshadowed by violence again. And, at least in the UK, BLM seems to be
fractured already. A lot of their aims or core values that they want to change go against
everything. The worst thing for me here is George Floyd: he has been forgotten. They
used his name for 2 or 3 weeks and then they never mentioned him again. So, was it
really George Floyd who triggered that, or was it just an excuse?

H In England, 70,000 people showed up in London for a demonstration. The difference

between US and UK at the time is that we were on lockdown, only allowed to have

U
meetings of groups of 6, and 2 meters apart. Hate was bound to start straight away,
because we’d been stuck in the house for three months. During these months, people
who were supposed to care about black lives didn’t demonstrate even if blacks were
more at risk for COVID. Yet people just flocked to London, risking everything and

M
everybody. And that’s where you tap into the ‘All lives matter,’ because BLM and
supporters didn’t care about the COVID risk, and so people started thinking differently
about the movement that only seemed to care about one segment of the population. In
the long run, this perspective will only aid and abet the far-right.

B So, BLM in the beginning was a good thing, but sadly, like we see with every movement
that is removed from its initial cause, the majority took over and spoiled the bigger

L
picture. I can understand the grievances, or at least as much as I can being a white
male, but I just can’t see the good anymore. BLM is an important issue, but we made it
about race, just like we did with everything else. Even during the last British election we
saw it turned into race. The only thing it is allowing us to do is get stuck in this identity

E
politics that has little to do with who we are about human beings.

All Lives Matter’ is one of the most complex and divisive issues. People don’t
understand, they don’t get it. It’s about human beings. If we want to see change, we’re
going to have to change and talk about human beings. ‘I have ‘All Lives matter’ on my
Twitter for that very reason, because I hope one day we can see each other as human
beings. These protests have grown increasingly violent, especially as the far-right
fiercely pushed back against BLM protesters. You were part of a similar dynamic, when
you saw two people get arrested for protesting against radical Islamic preacher Anjem Choudary, and eight
other Muslims known as ‘Butchers of Basra’, as they interrupted a homecoming parade of troops in Luton. How
can you explain the reciprocal radicalization that we are currently experiencing worldwide?

I think that this has been going on for years, even if I go 11 years back, when I was in EDL: the lack of
engagement, the lack of dialogue with people who think different than you, white people shaming other white
people for not supporting BLM, people being forced to pick sides… That only pushes people further apart, it
doesn’t bring them together.

For example, as I already said, I have ‘All Lives Matter’ on my Twitter. An old friend of mine who I had a bit of a
falling out with called me a racist, and I took offence to that. I’m not racist, I’ve proven myself. For someone like
him to call me racist, that hurt. This is why I talk so much about my experiences with regard to what’s going on:
don’t be joining stupid arguments, don’t believe the first thing you read online. Because this is how people are
getting caught up in this.

We’ve been stuck in the house for three months. And when people usually went to hang out with their friends,
and have a beer or whatever after work, now they’re drinking, smoking, doing whatever else, in isolation, and in
their online echo-chambers instead of the real world. And there’s just so much misinformation out there that
they’re being pulled in, because the moment you hear your opinion being reinforced, that’s as far as you will go.

As a result, it seems there are only two options now: left or right.

Paul Golding, leader of the far-right group Britain First recently said: “I am extremely fed up with the way that
the authorities have allowed two consecutive weekends of vandalism against our national monuments.” How
are statues and symbols used by the far-right to push their propaganda? Do you think it’s ‘just about the
statues’? What do you think are the actual backgrounds, attitudes and concerns of far-right supporters as they
look at events unfolding?

I looked into the statue argument and I understand when they pulled down slave owner statues. But it was not
even black people pulling it down, it was white people. And that got me thinking: why are these people doing
this? Because later the debate went on to statues of Winston Churchill, who is considered a national hero by
many people, and despised by others. There’s no in between.

The far-right used the opportunity to exploit the debate, and Paul Golding, I hate to say it, is brilliant at that. He
showed up in London with a White Lives Matter t-shirt. It was about provocation, not about the statue. And it
also helped him push the victimhood card.

The police had no control over first demonstration in London because they weren’t prepared BLM simply
showed up in London, without prior warning. The far-right, on the other hand, kept bragging for a week about
how they were going to go to London, and that gave the police enough time to prepare. Yet, they manipulate
facts in order to be able to play the victim card.

In the midst of it all, the far-left’s discourse on white supremacy only further polarizes the issue by pushing
people further to the extremes. We never talk about those who see the destruction of the system as the only
solution. We don’t talk enough about the far-left. It looks like they’re doing good, but if you overcome labels and
perceptions, we should be able to see that they are also contributing to the problem.

The problem is precisely that there is no middle ground, even if both sides might have legitimate grievances. It’s
not about being right or wrong, it’s about nuances. History is complicated. Yes, there has been slavery. But we
need to look at it in context. Back in the day, perceptions were not the same as they are today, and we can’t
judge things that happened in the past with today’s standards.

It seems like we’re stuck in a vicious circle. And that’s why I’ve become so vocal. Because this needs to end.
Our platform, Light Upon Light, is about speaking
above that left and right paradigm. How can we get
people to rise above the dichotomous world view
and listen to more informed, more nuanced
perspectives? How can we make progress, even if
change doesn’t happen overnight?
I’ve been pushing a similar narrative for some years.
It’s not until we sit at the table that we will be able to
discuss. Only when all views are on the table can
we find a solution, and that solution might lie
precisely in the middle. But the difficult part is getting
people to sit at the table. Everybody is too stuck on
their echo-chambers.
The last five years have shown me that a lot of
organizations, left and right, are always looking for a
boogieman to blame for everything that happens.
And such boogieman does not exist. We need to
stop being lazy, attributing labels that simplify reality,
stop doxing… and we need to start taking
responsibilities. We need to paint shades of gray
between black and white.
For example, a University student here has now
been charged with terrorism for possessing a copy
of ‘The Anarchist Cookbook.’ I understand it’s
banned because it has a recipe on how to build a
bomb, but are terrorism charges necessary? Will he
be able to move on with his life after he comes home
from prison? Will he be able to change after such
charges, or are we further labelling? Especially
when, back in the day, contentious Muslim figures
were not being treated in the same manner. That’s
only furthering the rhetoric and anger of the far-right.
It’s difficult to find a positive in all of this. But there
are signs of hope. There was a black protester in
London who rescued a white counter-protester from
a beating; in Manchester there was a BLM
demonstration, and two BLM supporters went to
shake hands with counter-protesters. We need to
see this happen at a broader scale. Only one month
ago the world was coming together because of
COVID, finding common ground, supporting each
other… and George Floyd’s horrendous murder
killed all that. We need to bring it back.
Nobody wants to talk to each other, we’d rather just
label. I saw that for myself: I had demonized
Muslims until I had my first conversation with a
Muslim. I realized that I had been clinging onto
simplistic, superficial explanations. A similar thing
is happening now, where everybody is a racist if
you don’t fulfill certain expectations or support a
given movement. That’s the vicious circle I was
talking about earlier.
A recent article published in The Guardian
mentioned that the number of far-right extremists
incarcerated in UK prison has reached an all-time
high. What do you think is the reason for this
increase? Do you think we can arrest our way out
of the far-right extremism problem? What do
you feel is the best way to adress identity, race and
belonging in today’s world?
It
It’s not a crazy increase. It’s just more people
being caught and imprisoned, but that does not
necessarily imply that there is a higher threat. It
could be higher because charges and sentences
have been changed, based on public hate crimes.
But we need to be careful with what we perceive to
be hateful. What some may perceive as being
racist, may not be considered so by others. Some
might say that, if Black Lives Matter, why doesn’t
their life matter too, you know?
All you have to do is go online to see how these
debates are further inflaming the extremist
rhetoric. Everything is online because it is easier to
spread hate online. And ordinary people are
starting to get stuck in the online realm. But one
day that online division will make it to the streets.
You can’t predict what’s going to happen because
the far-right has no motivation to take the streets
for now. They don’t need to raise awareness. The
more this situation plays out, the better it is for the
far-right. It will become increasingly easier to
spread messages online that reinforce the idea
that whites are being treated differently. And
people will believe that eventually. And, most likely,
the next terrorist is not among 500 far-right
protesters, but online absorbing propaganda.
It seems increasingly that there are just two sides
to everything. How can we reduce the inability to
function as a whole? That inability may trigger a
collapse of the way of life as we know it, how can
reverse this propensity of radicalization and
violence?
There is no easy solution. Politics, society, everything
needs to change. Change needs to happen and the
top for it to happen at the bottom, but for change to
happen at the top, we need to force bottom-up
change. But even politics are becoming increasing
polarized and it seems that there are just two options.
Some people don’t even vote because of that, so how
are we going to implement change?
People like us to stick our neck out and have our
voices heard. People need to listen to us, not for us to
tell them what to think, but for us to give them another
puzzle piece to add to a broader situation. We all
need challenged, because if we are not, we will
becoming increasingly entrenched in our worldviews.
Until people don’t turn inwards, no matter what we
say, it won’t happen. If people don’t assume the
responsibility and the role they play in the current
situation, nothing will change.
Where do you think we’re headed? Do you see any
signs of change taking place any time soon?
That is very difficult to predict. But we’re certainly not
going to be that different ten years from now,
because of our inability to sit down with each other.
Anybody who says things will change, they’re
not being honest. Let’s be transparent, this is
going to take years to fix because this has been
going on for years, centuries in fact.
Race is one the most divisive things out there
because it allows people to stereotype and throw
the racism card out whenever they find it
applicable. Labels are being thrown around, no
matter what label it is, and that’s dangerous
because in an increasingly diverse and
globalized world, stereotypes are becoming less
difficult
di to implement. So, until we stop that there
is not going to be any change.
What is paramount is that we realize that we
share a social class. That is what brings people
together. Because they see that they’re class
is not being treated equally, and that’s extremely
difficult to fix.
The solution, as I said, comes by
sitting together at a table and
searching for common ground.
If you or anybody you know has been touched or affected by the hate of anther or
by a hate-based movement in any way, please call our 24/7 Helpline: 

202-486-8633
parallelnetworks@pnetworks.org